Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, video games, and the new online town square

Weekend <em>Donkey Kong 64</em> marathon serves as a gathering place for much more.

Read the whole story

 

[brentrad]

Then Trump happened.

Yeah that was the true beginning of the end for any remaining true Republican in the US...

Now I'm curious: what's a "true Republican", and why would Trump rubbing their noses in what their party's *been* for decades be the last straw?

Good point.

I'd just say that Republicanism isn't really a bad thing, we can have legitimate arguments over where certain lines are, what government should be involved in or not. One of my favorite presidents of all time was Teddy Roosevelt, and he was a Republican (at first) after all. But Teddy also knew when to protect the people when they were being taken advantage of by big business, and he deeply believed in preserving (conserving, if you will) our amazing natural heritage by greatly expanding the national parks.

But Republicans have been moving further and further over to the far right for a generation now, and getting further and further away from reality, and selling us out more and more to big business as they decry socialism as the real problem. Even Reagan wouldn't recognize what his party has turned into, and I have no lost love for Reagan.

I guess I was just trying to say that Trump allowed all the crazy in the party, that was formerly just barely kept in check by the sane wing of the party, to burst out into the open and become the mainstream face of the party. He made it OK to deny facts and reality, as long as their side was "winning".

All political parties have their insane wings. The problem is that the Republicans allowed their insane radical wing to take over.

 

[Ozy]

<drunken gibberish>

Once again, user name checks out.

 

[Thad Boyd]

"Benjamin Aaron Shapiro is an American conservative political commentator, writer, and lawyer" according to his own Twitter bio.

Yeah...I'm going to go with "he is just some random person."

Then Trump happened.

Yeah that was the true beginning of the end for any remaining true Republican in the US...

Nah. Trump is the logical endpoint of Nixon's Southern Strategy. He's a symptom, not the cause.

And for the record, I don't recall Ben Shapiro being any less of a pissant when he was kissing W's ass than he is as a Never-Trump Republican.

i eat paste

Once again, user name checks out.

You know, some of us blocked him months ago and would just love it if people would quit quoting his "wit" and "wisdom" at us.

Since I know we've got mods reading this thread...guys, is there any chance we could fix this rickety old comment engine so that it would blank out quotes from people on our Ignore lists? I think that would be a much more useful feature than the new "Show posts by people whose posts I explicitly specified I don't want to see" button.

(Also, the "you can only show six nested quotes" -- if your parser can count the number of nested quotes, it should be able to just delete the innermost one.)

 

[brentrad]

Come here for the tech news but this site is clearly very political, and clearly in favour of one political party.

Additionally, free speech is honoured here, as long as it falls in line with a single political party's views.

Ars Technica you've basically become CNN. Lost your way a bit I'm afraid.

Ooh! Now I've got a bingo on my Ars Technica Bingo card!

So much winning today...

 

[falsoman]

Come here for the tech news but this site is clearly very political, and clearly in favour of one political party.

Additionally, free speech is honoured here, as long as it falls in line with a single political party's views.

Ars Technica you've basically become CNN. Lost your way a bit I'm afraid.

LOL I love these types of comments. This site has ALWAYS been incredibly political, and I haven't been here from the start, but I've been here for 14 years and they've always have covered both gaming, politics that interesct with science and tech, and copyright stuff, among other things.

They have been covering LGBTQ issues in politics, in tech and in science since basically forever. They have sections of the site dedicated to different topics, not just tech. They cover a lot of things that do not interest me, you know what I do with that? I don't read or comment in them.

At this point in time, if you were a seasoned reader of this site you would probably abstain from the Freeze Peaches argument. You're just wrong there. AAAAANYHOW, let's go back on topic.

I love mostly EVERYTHING about this story. It's finally an objectively (subjective I know) positive story on gaming, it is in my belief a worthy cause, it is interesting, entertaining, and it even has a defeated villain in it. Sadly, that villain is someone who has written things I love. It won't sour the IT crowd for me, but it will probably make me uneasy at some jokes in his future endeavors.

Holy fuck, I decided to check this guy's twitter and he is completely unravelled. I won't drag him, because that's been done, but it's incredibly sad and pathetic how much vile and energy he is dedicating to dying in the wrong hill.

 

[Scionfall]

As a liberal I'm supposed to like her, but I just don't.

Something about her doesn't smell right. Maybe it's her populism, maybe the way she carries out her rhetoric which reminds me too much of the other party. Her ignorance in various topics doesn't help either.

I wish we had more 'Elizabeth Warren's and less 'Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez'-es. That is all.

And who else is like her? Bernie Sanders is about all I can think of in Congress.

I'd suggest giving her time. She's been quite the firebrand to be sure but remember that you are comparing her to peers who have many years in office.

Right now her combination of inexperience and popularity combines to make for a frustrating time for this around her. And this is something even her fellow Democratic Congress people have complained about. But eventually she's going to learn how the game is played and she will adapt accordingly. When this happens that's when I think she'll really shine and you'll see left with a progressive who is both passionate and super effective within her party.

I'd mention how the Republicans would love nothing more than to get in her way but this is the way they feel about the party as a whole and not just one particular person.

 

[brentrad]

"Benjamin Aaron Shapiro is an American conservative political commentator, writer, and lawyer" according to his own Twitter bio.

Yeah...I'm going to go with "he is just some random person."

Then Trump happened.

Yeah that was the true beginning of the end for any remaining true Republican in the US...

Nah. Trump is the logical endpoint of Nixon's Southern Strategy. He's a symptom, not the cause.

And for the record, I don't recall Ben Shapiro being any less of a pissant when he was kissing W's ass than he is as a Never-Trump Republican.

i eat paste

Once again, user name checks out.

You know, some of us blocked him months ago and would just love it if people would quit quoting his "wit" and "wisdom" at us.

Since I know we've got mods reading this thread...guys, is there any chance we could fix this rickety old comment engine so that it would blank out quotes from people on our Ignore lists? I think that would be a much more useful feature than the new "Show posts by people whose posts I explicitly specified I don't want to see" button.

(Also, the "you can only show six nested quotes" -- if your parser can count the number of nested quotes, it should be able to just delete the innermost one.)

I guess I was more saying that Trump was the final straw. He definitely didn't cause the downfall of the modern Republican party though, you're right about that.

Seriously Ars, please do something about the "six nested quotes" issue. Deleting the innermost one is a good solution. Usually I just give up when I run into that, I can't parse all the nested quotes well enough to manually chop some out myself.

 

[brentrad]

"This country was founded and fought for on the basis of limiting the power of central government and a central church...and the opportunity to benefit from the fruit of your labors and ambitions."

Define a limited central government. I ask because even Yee Founding Fathers of Days Yore couldn't come to an agreement on that subject.

And the reason he's being downvoted isn't because we're reeling in cognitive dissonance at his unimpeachable grasp of reality, but because, at least as far as market models are concerned, you're all screaming about the evils of apples while the rest of us are talking about oranges.

"Oranges make great juice."

"BUT APPLES HAVE SEEDS YOU CAN SUCK DOWN YOUR THROAT THEN FUCKING DIE ON! WHY CAN YOU NOT SEE THIS?"

"...what?"

"Spoiled millennials, thinking everything's easy to juice!"

Yes the FFs debated around how and to what extent government should be limited. But they all agreed that it should be limited. In Europe, not so much. Hence our Consititution as amended and the Bill of Rights. Not such documents controlling governments in Europe, my friend. That's why so many fled to the US. To escape the despotic governments in Europe. Ignorance of history is nothing to be proud of, however ashamed of it you may be.

What the fuck you are going on about with your apples and oranges thing escapes me. We are talking abut socialism and government control over citizens. The articel is about AOC and her "thing" is more government and socialist economic policies. At least she is honest enough to admit that, whereas I am not sure what you are trying to say.

And yes, going by their support of people like AOC, millenials are extremely naive and have a sense of entitlement - as applies to all socialists, IMHO. But they are the first Amerivcan generation that is emracing socialism with such enthusiasm. Don't get me wrong, there are obviously some clued in Millenials, just not hte majority (according to polls).

Can you let me know another generation in US history that gave majority support to socislist policies. i know you think that is a good thing. i think it is bad. they are both opinions. but the fact remains, the Millenials are the first generation to get behind socialism as far as I am aware. Even 5 years ago, most US politicians could not refer to themselves as socialists for as soicialism was a fringe thing. For Millenials, socialism has majority support and capitalism is a fringe thing. You should be happy that we are going "full socialist".

I think Millenials are pretty darn smart in general, and have their heads on straight for the most part, but we all see things how we want to, I guess. I have a lot of optimism about the direction our country will head politically if we can get them to vote in larger numbers. The good news is that 2018 polling shows a big surge in the percentage of Millenials voting.

"Can you let me know another generation in US history that gave majority support to socialist policies?"

Sure. The Greatest Generation, grew up during the Great Depression. I seem to remember that FDR's Democratic Socialist policies were so popular, he was elected president four times. Ask your grandma what she thinks of FDR. Oh, you didn't realize that's the type of "socialism" we've been talking about? Maybe you should pay closer attention to what we're actually saying, then.

 

[brentrad]

Then Trump happened.

Yeah that was the true beginning of the end for any remaining true Republican in the US...

Now I'm curious: what's a "true Republican", and why would Trump rubbing their noses in what their party's *been* for decades be the last straw?

Good point.

I'd just say that Republicanism isn't really a bad thing, we can have legitimate arguments over where certain lines are, what government should be involved in or not. One of my favorite presidents of all time was Teddy Roosevelt, and he was a Republican (at first) after all. But Teddy also knew when to protect the people when they were being taken advantage of by big business, and he deeply believed in preserving (conserving, if you will) our amazing natural heritage by greatly expanding the national parks.

But Republicans have been moving further and further over to the far right for a generation now, and getting further and further away from reality, and selling us out more and more to big business as they decry socialism as the real problem. Even Reagan wouldn't recognize what his party has turned into, and I have no lost love for Reagan.

I guess I was just trying to say that Trump allowed all the crazy in the party, that was formerly just barely kept in check by the sane wing of the party, to burst out into the open and become the mainstream face of the party. He made it OK to deny facts and reality, as long as their side was "winning".

All political parties have their insane wings. The problem is that the Republicans allowed their insane radical wing to take over.

Exactly! And the DNC have done EXACTLY the same thing. Or are you telling me that AOC is not waaaaaay left of WJC, HRC and BO?

Oooh! SO CLOSE to Conservative Bingo Blackout! "Both sides are the same!" Give me a "libturd" and I win!

 

[s73v3r]

Except she didn't say it was catcalling. She said it was like catcalling in its disingenuous nature. I mean, she, quite literally, spells it out. I can't fathom having such poor comprehension.

It's what happens when you cut school funding.

 

[s73v3r]

freeze peach

You know that "free speech" does not mean you're entitled to have anyone actually have to read your dreck, right? And that other people are perfectly free to use their free speech to decide you are not contributing, and downvote, right?

 

[s73v3r]

Do you guys read what you write? It is SO FUCKING BIASED. You call her a "firebrand". You call Trump an "extremist". Someone who was not biased would call them both "extremists".

No, they wouldn't. What she is calling for, and what Trump is calling for, are on completely different levels. Unless "Hey, maybe people shouldn't be struggling to put a roof over their heads and food in their bellies when we have people who literally have more money than some nations exist in society" is extreme.

then you defend her incompetencey

Still haven't seen any demonstrations of this "incompetency" you keep talking about.

Neither should hold public office.

Wait, the person who wants to build a wall to keep out the brown people, and the person who wants to make sure that people can actually get by on a single job are both unfit for public office?

 

[brentrad]

As a liberal I'm supposed to like her, but I just don't.

Something about her doesn't smell right. Maybe it's her populism, maybe the way she carries out her rhetoric which reminds me too much of the other party. Her ignorance in various topics doesn't help either.

I wish we had more 'Elizabeth Warren's and less 'Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez'-es. That is all.

And who else is like her? Bernie Sanders is about all I can think of in Congress.

I'd suggest giving her time. She's been quite the firebrand to be sure but remember that you are comparing her to peers who have many years in office.

Right now her combination of inexperience and popularity combines to make for a frustrating time for this around her. And this is something even her fellow Democratic Congress people have complained about. But eventually she's going to learn how the game is played and she will adapt accordingly. When this happens that's when I think she'll really shine and you'll see left with a progressive who is both passionate and super effective within her party.

I'd mention how the Republicans would love nothing more than to get in her way but this is the way they feel about the party as a whole and not just one particular person.

Do you guys read what you write? It is SO FUCKING BIASED. You call her a "firebrand". You call Trump an "extremist". Someone who was not biased would call them both "extremists".

then you defend her incompetencey by saying she hasn't been in politics all that long. Neither has Trump. They are BOTH incompetent. Neither should hold public office. They are BOTH examples of how are polity has been pushed out toward the extremes. The fact that you like her extremism but don't like Trump's is irrelevant.

She is a loon. So is Trump. But that seems to be what the voters want (shame on them). The fact that Trump beat Hillary is an indictment on the US voting public. The fact that AOC beat Crowley in the primaries is an indictment on the voters of that district (but sadly reflective of the wider electorate). And both are evidence that extreme loons is what the respective bases want. It sucks, but that's democracy for ya. The people have already "experimented" with the Trump Reps and got a nasty rash and a hangover. Once they have experimented with the AOC Dems they will wake up in hospital one mrning and finally (hopefully) go back to reasoned, sane politicians.

You're partly right. Trump is incompetent. But he's not an extremist, except in his immigration views. He's a pretty middle of the road Republican in many other ways. The tax law he helped the Republicans pass was bog-standard Republican wet-dream policy.

AOC isn't in any way an extremist though. To someone on the far right she might seem that way. But you'd be surprised how many support her and Bernie's policy positions, even if they may not have supported Bernie over Clinton. AOC is someone finally expousing views that many/most of the Democrats support. Personally I voted for Bernie in the primary, Clinton in the general. But their stated policies didn't end up being that different. I'd have been perfectly fine with Clinton. Way better than Trump in any case.

And please don't think that just because we may support Democrats, that we believe that the DNC is who represents us. The DNC is a necessary evil to help get Democrats elected. I'm no great fan of the DNC, but I also think that today's Republicans are a much bigger threat to the country, so they're a necessary evil at this time.

And like we keep repeating but you keep ignoring: universal healthcare and high taxes on the rich actually poll well with all sides of the political spectrum.

 

[brentrad]

"This country was founded and fought for on the basis of limiting the power of central government and a central church...and the opportunity to benefit from the fruit of your labors and ambitions."

Define a limited central government. I ask because even Yee Founding Fathers of Days Yore couldn't come to an agreement on that subject.

And the reason he's being downvoted isn't because we're reeling in cognitive dissonance at his unimpeachable grasp of reality, but because, at least as far as market models are concerned, you're all screaming about the evils of apples while the rest of us are talking about oranges.

"Oranges make great juice."

"BUT APPLES HAVE SEEDS YOU CAN SUCK DOWN YOUR THROAT THEN FUCKING DIE ON! WHY CAN YOU NOT SEE THIS?"

"...what?"

"Spoiled millennials, thinking everything's easy to juice!"

Yes the FFs debated around how and to what extent government should be limited. But they all agreed that it should be limited. In Europe, not so much. Hence our Consititution as amended and the Bill of Rights. Not such documents controlling governments in Europe, my friend. That's why so many fled to the US. To escape the despotic governments in Europe. Ignorance of history is nothing to be proud of, however ashamed of it you may be.

What the fuck you are going on about with your apples and oranges thing escapes me. We are talking abut socialism and government control over citizens. The articel is about AOC and her "thing" is more government and socialist economic policies. At least she is honest enough to admit that, whereas I am not sure what you are trying to say.

And yes, going by their support of people like AOC, millenials are extremely naive and have a sense of entitlement - as applies to all socialists, IMHO. But they are the first Amerivcan generation that is emracing socialism with such enthusiasm. Don't get me wrong, there are obviously some clued in Millenials, just not hte majority (according to polls).

Can you let me know another generation in US history that gave majority support to socislist policies. i know you think that is a good thing. i think it is bad. they are both opinions. but the fact remains, the Millenials are the first generation to get behind socialism as far as I am aware. Even 5 years ago, most US politicians could not refer to themselves as socialists for as soicialism was a fringe thing. For Millenials, socialism has majority support and capitalism is a fringe thing. You should be happy that we are going "full socialist".

I think Millenials are pretty darn smart in general, and have their heads on straight for the most part, but we all see things how we want to, I guess. I have a lot of optimism about the direction our country will head politically if we can get them to vote in larger numbers. The good news is that 2018 polling shows a big surge in the percentage of Millenials voting.

"Can you let me know another generation in US history that gave majority support to socialist policies?"

Sure. The Greatest Generation, grew up during the Great Depression. I seem to remember that FDR's Democratic Socialist policies were so popular, he was elected president four times. Ask your grandma what she thinks of FDR. Oh, you didn't realize that's the type of "socialism" we've been talking about? Maybe you should pay closer attention to what we're actually saying, then.

FDR called himself socialist? I'll try to look it up.

I never said that, did I? I said his New Deal policies are Democratic Socialist policies.

 

[Static and Noise]

"This country was founded and fought for on the basis of limiting the power of central government and a central church...and the opportunity to benefit from the fruit of your labors and ambitions."

Define a limited central government. I ask because even Yee Founding Fathers of Days Yore couldn't come to an agreement on that subject.

And the reason he's being downvoted isn't because we're reeling in cognitive dissonance at his unimpeachable grasp of reality, but because, at least as far as market models are concerned, you're all screaming about the evils of apples while the rest of us are talking about oranges.

"Oranges make great juice."

"BUT APPLES HAVE SEEDS YOU CAN SUCK DOWN YOUR THROAT THEN FUCKING DIE ON! WHY CAN YOU NOT SEE THIS?"

"...what?"

"Spoiled millennials, thinking everything's easy to juice!"

Yes the FFs debated around how and to what extent government should be limited. But they all agreed that it should be limited. In Europe, not so much. Hence our Consititution as amended and the Bill of Rights. Not such documents controlling governments in Europe, my friend. That's why so many fled to the US. To escape the despotic governments in Europe. Ignorance of history is nothing to be proud of, however ashamed of it you may be.

*sigh* The main reasons people left for America was, well, food. Some for religious freedom. But mainly, well, food & land.

And plenty of constitutions in Europe limited goverment. Set up checks and balances and such.

 

[Renzatic]

What the fuck you are going on about with your apples and oranges thing escapes me. We are talking abut socialism and government control over citizens. The articel is about AOC and her "thing" is more government and socialist economic policies. At least she is honest enough to admit that, whereas I am not sure what you are trying to say.

I could get into a deep argument about what constitutes government control, what Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Washington, Hamilton et al. might have intended, where they disagreed, and blah blah blah. In the end, it's all just addressing and compensating for your scatterbrained alarmism, and I really don't feel like doing it.

Hell, I linked to a letter Hamilton wrote concerning support for issues you'd consider grossly communist. Read that. Get mad at it. Washington and Adams were more in his camp, firmly in support of a larger Federal government in comparison to Jefferson and Madison.

Anyway.

Capitalism. It's a good thing. Through it, we've grown the wealthiest, most well empowered middle class the world has ever seen. It's created a country that grew from a backwater province to a world superpower within 200 years. I'm pretty well a fan of it.

That said, I don't hold it in nigh religious reverence, believing it to be the one true form of economy sent to us from on high, free of flaws and unintended circumstances. It is, as much as anything, imperfect. I don't take a dogmatic view of things, thinking that God only intended for us to be pure, laissez faire capitalist, lest we poison the pristine waters we draw from its perfect well.

Sometimes, you need something to intervene in the flow of the economy. Sometimes, you need to subsidize programs to maximize their output. A few government regulations and social programs won't kill us, won't make us all commies overnight.

See, I believe we should subsidize healthcare and education. Now, if we were to start handing out education grants and offering single payer, how would that harm our capitalist economy? Is it taking away hard earned money from our citizenry? That is one way to look at it.

...but how would it help our economy? You'd think that a healthier workforce would be a more efficient workforce, right? An educated workforce one that's more flexible in the market, with more upward mobility. Healthier, smarter, better educated people contribute more to the market, wanting to make more money. The more they contribute, the more money they spend, the faster the market grows. The faster it grows, the more money there is to be made.

So that little bit of socialism could end up bolstering the market as a whole.

See, I think the biggest problem with conservatives these days is they're all a bunch of misanthropic fucks. People are greedy little beggars, eating away at their bottom line. The way I see it, throwing them a few subsidizes that cover the necessities lowers costs, guarantees coverage, gives people less to worry about. Makes people happier. A happy people are a people more likely to spend money. From there you know the rest.

So yeah, you might lose a few more percent off your paycheck from taxes, but the chances of you potentially making more money are increased due to the healthier, more competitive market you've bolstered through social programs.

And if you say it's all a pipe dream, all you need to do is look at Europe now, or look at the US back in the 50's and 60's, when the New Deal was still in full swing.

 

[brentrad]

**Gah! hit by the "6 nested quotes" issue. Sorry, this kind of mangles the conversation, but I'll do my best to lay out our conversation here:**


Opinionator:

Exactly! And the DNC have done EXACTLY the same thing. Or are you telling me that AOC is not waaaaaay left of WJC, HRC and BO?

Brentrad:

Oooh! SO CLOSE to Conservative Bingo Blackout! "Both sides are the same!" Give me a "libturd" and I win!

Opinionator:
Nice way to avoid my question. I'll take that as you do not have answer to fit your little fanboi narrative. If you ever read my posts, I do not call people names. To call people names is to diminish your own argument.

I am certainly not a Republican. But I am not a radical AOC Dem, either.

As I said, if you don't think the Dems have moved left since HRC lost, then you are actually no better than a Trump supporter. In that facts have no effect on you.

But keep rambling on about your "bingo" or whatever. Help me understand, would that be like a Fox commenter saying Bingo every time someone mentioned Russia. Is that what you are getting at? Repeating talking points etc?

Brentrad:

Some Dems have moved left. Some have moved to the center. Some, like me, are at the same point we always have been. I can't answer for "the party as a whole." We'll only know that in 2020.

To answer your question about whether AOC is "waaaaaaaay' left of WJC, HRC, and BO:

I'd say AOC is fairly far to the left of WJC. But that's a good thing. He was pretty squarely moderate, but a product of his time. He's way too moderate for today, however.

I'd say AOC is a bit to the left of HRC. She's always been more left than many folks give her credit for.

I'd say AOC is slightly to the left of BO on some issues, such as taxation. I'd say they agree on other issues - I believe BO would have advocated for Universal Healthcare if he really believed that it was possible to get it. I'd say they're pretty much the same on social issues.

Here's the bottom line. I think that people are tired of the tired old half-measures that we've been sold by politicians as the only things that are possible. We want bold politicians who will not just regurgitate the same tired old ideas like "we need to let the free market figure out the answers." That's why I liked Bernie in 2016. That's why I like AOC now. And also the fact that she's getting us seriously talking about policies. And yes, I love how she hits back at those who try to come after her - but not with insults, but with facts, policy ideas, and yes, witty comebacks. Like it or not, politics is a contact sport, and I love how she takes no shit from anyone.

The free market has obviously failed in the arena of healthcare. I work in that industry. I see the massive inefficiencies. I worked at a pediatric clinic where we had about 30 physicians - and about 30 folks working in the Business Office, billing claims. That's only necessary because insurance companies have inserted themselves as middle-men, each with their own massive list of rules, so it's impossible to actually get them to pay unless you navigate their massive rent-seeking bureaucracy. Switch to ONE insurance company (i.e. the government, i.e. Universal Healthcare or Medicare For All) and you have ONE price, ONE bureaucracy to deal with, and you can get rid of probably 80% of those employees.

And the government would be able to say to doctors "take $X for this procedure, take it or leave it". The doctors are working more and more, and getting more and more of their profits eaten up. They're not getting any richer - at least not your average general practitioner. I didn't see flashy cars in our clinic parking lots owned by the physicians. They're doing OK, don't get me wrong, but the massive rises in costs we continue to see are not going in the doctors' pockets.

Now look at the free market as it relates to the computer business. Massive competition. Massive leaps in computing power over time, all while prices dropping to a fraction of what they were 20 years ago. The government is fine with a light touch in the computer market, just enough to foster competition and stop collusion.

So please, stop with the fear-mongering over "socialism" taking over.

Healthcare needs an overhaul - any business where you don't have any choice whether or not you partake - as is the case of healthcare - is rife with rent-seeking and abuse.

The financial industry needs a serious butt-whooping - not nationalization, but I think they need to be broken up into much smaller companies so real competition can resume.

Healthy amounts of competition is good. Monopolies and too much consolidation is bad.

 

[brentrad]

As a liberal I'm supposed to like her, but I just don't.

Something about her doesn't smell right. Maybe it's her populism, maybe the way she carries out her rhetoric which reminds me too much of the other party. Her ignorance in various topics doesn't help either.

I wish we had more 'Elizabeth Warren's and less 'Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez'-es. That is all.

And who else is like her? Bernie Sanders is about all I can think of in Congress.

I'd suggest giving her time. She's been quite the firebrand to be sure but remember that you are comparing her to peers who have many years in office.

Right now her combination of inexperience and popularity combines to make for a frustrating time for this around her. And this is something even her fellow Democratic Congress people have complained about. But eventually she's going to learn how the game is played and she will adapt accordingly. When this happens that's when I think she'll really shine and you'll see left with a progressive who is both passionate and super effective within her party.

I'd mention how the Republicans would love nothing more than to get in her way but this is the way they feel about the party as a whole and not just one particular person.

Do you guys read what you write? It is SO FUCKING BIASED. You call her a "firebrand". You call Trump an "extremist". Someone who was not biased would call them both "extremists".

then you defend her incompetencey by saying she hasn't been in politics all that long. Neither has Trump. They are BOTH incompetent. Neither should hold public office. They are BOTH examples of how are polity has been pushed out toward the extremes. The fact that you like her extremism but don't like Trump's is irrelevant.

She is a loon. So is Trump. But that seems to be what the voters want (shame on them). The fact that Trump beat Hillary is an indictment on the US voting public. The fact that AOC beat Crowley in the primaries is an indictment on the voters of that district (but sadly reflective of the wider electorate). And both are evidence that extreme loons is what the respective bases want. It sucks, but that's democracy for ya. The people have already "experimented" with the Trump Reps and got a nasty rash and a hangover. Once they have experimented with the AOC Dems they will wake up in hospital one mrning and finally (hopefully) go back to reasoned, sane politicians.

You're partly right. Trump is incompetent. But he's not an extremist, except in his immigration views. He's a pretty middle of the road Republican in many other ways. The tax law he helped the Republicans pass was bog-standard Republican wet-dream policy.

AOC isn't in any way an extremist though. To someone on the far right she might seem that way. But you'd be surprised how many support her and Bernie's policy positions, even if they may not have supported Bernie over Clinton. AOC is someone finally expousing views that many/most of the Democrats support. Personally I voted for Bernie in the primary, Clinton in the general. But their stated policies didn't end up being that different. I'd have been perfectly fine with Clinton. Way better than Trump in any case.

And please don't think that just because we may support Democrats, that we believe that the DNC is who represents us. The DNC is a necessary evil to help get Democrats elected. I'm no great fan of the DNC, but I also think that today's Republicans are a much bigger threat to the country, so they're a necessary evil at this time.

And like we keep repeating but you keep ignoring: universal healthcare and high taxes on the rich actually poll well with all sides of the political spectrum.

Dude, whether right or wrong, Medicare for all and free tertiary education is WAY extreme. Again, while I like her opposition to fossil fuels, her banning them by 2030 is also extreme. Extreme move away from the staus quo is extremism. It may be good. It may be bad, but it is extreme ALL DAY. 70% tax rates. That is a pretty big departure from the status quo.

And I would have had my money on you voting Bernie. I was Hillary. No secrets there. Hillary did not run on free health, free education and 70 tax rates (albeit only for each dollar over $10m). Wait until you see the upcoming campaign. Then go back and watch Hillary's campaign. They will look like completely different partires. I get it, you guys will be lathering up. I will be despairing. but to not recognize the seismic shift to the left in terms of both policy and rhetoric, is to deny reality.

And Trump has been more extrem than that. I actually agree with his immigration policy - it was the policy of my preferred Dems WJC through BO. But his climate policy looks like something from the 60s. He has removed more regualations than any President I can think of (some good some bad, IMHO) but the fact he has removed so many is an extreme departure from the staus quo. Same with his extreme departure from foreign policy status quo (again I actually agree with hiim on that, but it is still extreme). You seem to be conflating extreme with extremely bad. If a President spent 5% of GDP on publicly funded cancer research, I would be stoked, but I would recognize that as a pretty extreme measure.

"Medicare for all and free tertiary education is WAY extreme."

Oh rly?

"Seventy percent of Americans support 'Medicare for all' in new poll" - 8/23/2018

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4 ... re-for-all

Over 60% of respondents support free college tuition at public schools for qualified students:

https://polling.reuters.com/#!response/ ... apsed/true

 

[Aurich]

I can't even begin to fathom a logical argument where this would make any sense whatsoever.

On the other hand I find it rather obvious to understand. Funny that it's so simple to understand for me, and you can't even begin to wrap your head around it. Why would you want to come into our forum and announce that you're not good at understanding things? That's odd to me.

Regardless, enough of your trollng for a week. We don't need nonsense like "the triggered, melting snowflake millennials" in these discussions. If you come back please rethink your posting strategy.

Edit: and now it's permanent, goodbye

 

[DaVuVuZeLa]

Then Trump happened.

Yeah that was the true beginning of the end for any remaining true Republican in the US...

Now I'm curious: what's a "true Republican", and why would Trump rubbing their noses in what their party's *been* for decades be the last straw?

Good point.

I'd just say that Republicanism isn't really a bad thing, we can have legitimate arguments over where certain lines are, what government should be involved in or not. One of my favorite presidents of all time was Teddy Roosevelt, and he was a Republican (at first) after all. But Teddy also knew when to protect the people when they were being taken advantage of by big business, and he deeply believed in preserving (conserving, if you will) our amazing natural heritage by greatly expanding the national parks.

But Republicans have been moving further and further over to the far right for a generation now, and getting further and further away from reality, and selling us out more and more to big business as they decry socialism as the real problem. Even Reagan wouldn't recognize what his party has turned into, and I have no lost love for Reagan.

I guess I was just trying to say that Trump allowed all the crazy in the party, that was formerly just barely kept in check by the sane wing of the party, to burst out into the open and become the mainstream face of the party. He made it OK to deny facts and reality, as long as their side was "winning".

All political parties have their insane wings. The problem is that the Republicans allowed their insane radical wing to take over.

The crazy was already in the party. Trump is all that crazy in its final form.

 

[Aurich]

Do you guys read what you write? It is SO FUCKING BIASED.

Dial it back please. I won't tolerate you being an ass because you are talking to people you don't agree with.

Chill out when you're disagreed with, it's going to happen a lot.

 

[brentrad]

What the fuck you are going on about with your apples and oranges thing escapes me. We are talking abut socialism and government control over citizens. The articel is about AOC and her "thing" is more government and socialist economic policies. At least she is honest enough to admit that, whereas I am not sure what you are trying to say.

I could get into a deep argument about what constitutes government control, what Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Washington, Hamilton et al. might have intended, where they disagreed, and blah blah blah. In the end, it's all just addressing and compensating for your scatterbrained alarmism, and I really don't feel like doing it.

Hell, I linked to a letter Hamilton wrote concerning support for issues you'd consider grossly communist. Read that. Get mad at it. Washington and Adams were more in his camp, firmly in support of a larger Federal government in comparison to Jefferson and Madison.

Anyway.

Capitalism. It's a good thing. Through it, we've grown the wealthiest, most well empowered middle class the world has ever seen. It's created a country that grew from a backwater province to a world superpower within 200 years. I'm pretty well a fan of it.

That said, I don't hold it in nigh religious reverence, believing it to be the one true form of economy sent to us from on high, free of flaws and unintended circumstances. It is, as much as anything, imperfect. I don't take a dogmatic view of things, thinking that God only intended for us to be pure, laissez faire capitalist, lest we poison the pristine waters we draw from its perfect well.

Sometimes, you need something to intervene in the flow of the economy. Sometimes, you need to subsidize programs to maximize their output. A few government regulations and social programs won't kill us, won't make us all commies overnight.

See, I believe we should subsidize healthcare and education. Now, if we were to start handing out education grants and offering single payer, how would that harm our capitalist economy? Is it taking away hard earned money from our citizenry? That is one way to look at it.

...but how would it help our economy? You'd think that a healthier workforce would be a more efficient workforce, right? An educated workforce one that's more flexible in the market, with more upward mobility. Healthier, smarter, better educated people contribute more to the market, wanting to make more money. The more they contribute, the more money they spend, the faster the market grows. The faster it grows, the more money there is to be made.

So that little bit of socialism could end up bolstering the market as a whole.

See, I think the biggest problem with conservatives these days is they're all a bunch of misanthropic fucks. People are greedy little beggars, eating away at their bottom line. The way I see it, throwing them a few subsidizes that cover the necessities lowers costs, guarantees coverage, gives people less to worry about. Makes people happier. A happy people are a people more likely to spend money. From there you know the rest.

So yeah, you might lose a few more percent off your paycheck from taxes, but the chances of you potentially making more money are increased due to the healthier, more competitive market you've bolstered through social programs.

And if you say it's all a pipe dream, all you need to do is look at Europe now, or look at the US back in the 50's and 60's, when the New Deal was still in full swing.

Ummm, Europe is a dog's breakfast. Nothing like the US economy in the 50s and 60s...unless you put a 1 in front of the US unemployment rate during the 50s and 60s.

I have said I agree with universal health care. As to allowing tertiary education to be free? No. It costs a motza and people are less motivated to do well. The Australian experience here is probably the best sytem, IMHO. First, in the 70s they did the totally "free" university. No fees whatsoever. It was a disaster. Since the 80's they have a system whereby courses are still subsidized by government (and paid for by full fee paying non-citizen students), but the student gets an inflation indexed "loan" from the Government for those fees. But it is only repayable once (and if) the graduate starts earning a fairly good salary. And then it is only paid at about 2-6% of that income (higher payback rate as annual income rises). The result? Every single person in Australia can go to University with no upfont costs (so no need to have a rich Mummy and Daddy to get into their best Univeristies which is fantastic). But, at the same time, it still behooves the student to "give a fuck" as they are racking up a debt that may have to be paid back if and when the student ever earns decent coin. It varies among courses, but generally they run about AUD5k per semester. So a five year degree can run someone about $50k at the end. But there is no "pain"involved in paying it back as your income is taken into account when paying back. It is not onerous. But it avoids the problems of "free". The only thing limiting an Australian's ability to get into their best universities is academic record - a perfect system, IMHO.

I do not agree with being FORCED to "give a fuck about others". That's not how humans work. Lemme give it a try. I am well aware how despised I am on here. So here goes: who on here would like to give me a little bit of money to spend on my daughter's education? Let me know and I can send my bank details to an email address of your choosing. I swear I will spend it on getting my daughter a nicer desk or more expensive stationery for her studies. She is top of her year. I'll wait.....I'll be right here.....Guys?.....GUYS!

My point being that why not, if you want to contribute, donate to targeted charities or whatever? I find Government transfers of wealth clumsy and usually unjust. Healthcare is one exception that I justify on the basis of nobody is going to "abuse" healthcare. That is, I am not going to go and get heart disease just because the government will pay for my cardiologist. Most other things can be abused, but not healthcare.

Give me your address, I'll send you a nickel for your daughter's college. The same way I'd be totally cool with paying an extra $10 a year so that 200 kids can go to college. I'm weird that way, I don't mind paying taxes if it's going towards worthy programs.

Did you know that many states, including California and New York, offered their residents free college only as far back as the 70s? It's not some radical new idea. Many generations were able to get a college education and start contributing to their communities and their states.

Charities are fine, but they're not a useful way to solve systematic problems. Charities are all we had to support old folks before Social Security. They were obviously insufficient to deal with the magnitude of the issue.

 

[Renzatic]

I do not agree with being FORCED to "give a fuck about others". That's not how humans work. Lemme give it a try. I am well aware how despised I am on here. So here goes: who on here would like to give me a little bit of money to spend on my daughter's education? Let me know and I can send my bank details to an email address of your choosing. I swear I will spend it on getting my daughter a nicer desk or more expensive stationery for her studies. She is top of her year. I'll wait.....I'll be right here.....Guys?.....GUYS!

Then don't think of it as being forced to "give a fuck about others." Think of it more as everyone tossing their money into a pot to spread the cost out for an expensive, though necessary service. If you ever find yourself in a situation where you need to use that service, which everyone does at some point or another, you've already pretty much paid for it, and it's cost you less overall than it would have were you on the old insurance standard.

That works for healthcare. Education would be harder to justify using that same logic, I'll admit.

 

[Aurich]

I want to live in a country full of well educated people.

This is a simple and obvious common goal.

If I asked you, would you rather live in a neighborhood surrounded by smart people, or surrounded by dumb people, what would you answer? I'd rather live in a smart neighborhood personally. I'd like to be in a smart city too, that makes smart decisions, because the people who vote and work there are educated.

I'd like to be in a smart state, with educated people, who understand that state-level issues can be complicated and require thoughtfulness.

I'd like the brightest of them to end up in federal government. I don't want to elect idiots, I want a big pool of educated people who understand the issues, and vote according to being thoughtful. They don't all have to agree, but perhaps we could all discuss the issues with more intelligence.

The people who don't want that goal are the people who benefit from uneducated people making poor decisions.

 

[Guest]

Actual footage of Aurich:
https://www.facebook.com/raywilliamjohn ... 342073386/

 

[Aurich]

Ok. Free healthcare in the US (which I support FFS) is in no way a major departure from the status quo? Either is free college? And 70% top tax bracket?

Want to really lose your noodle? I won't spoil it for you, just google 1960 US marginal tax rate.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=1960+US+marginal+tax+rate

Saying a 70% marginal top bracket is outside of the status quo just flies in the face of history. We had higher for literally decades. Much higher. And maybe 70 isn't even the right number. But it's hardly off the table for discussion, we've already done more.